Pretty sure Uncharted is a big exception, not to mention it has multiplayer and microtransactions.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are single-player AAA games on the way out?
- Thread starter Bronx-Man
- Start date
Pretty sure Uncharted is a big exception, not to mention it has multiplayer and microtransactions.
Plague Doctor
Member
I have come to see the not so accurate term "AAA" to mean big budget, highly marketed $60 game and, while this isn't always the case, predominantly Western developed game (note developed not published).
With that said, if the monetization scheme of SoW is any indication of where they are going, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
There will always be someone to cater to the demand of SP only games and the "AA"(whatever that means now) sphere seems to be able to pull it off and make their money without shadey shit. It's a bittersweet blessing the AAA companies don't see them as lucrative ventures.
Edit: We may have less talented development studios gobbled up, watered down, and closed.
With that said, if the monetization scheme of SoW is any indication of where they are going, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
There will always be someone to cater to the demand of SP only games and the "AA"(whatever that means now) sphere seems to be able to pull it off and make their money without shadey shit. It's a bittersweet blessing the AAA companies don't see them as lucrative ventures.
Edit: We may have less talented development studios gobbled up, watered down, and closed.
There is definitely a mismatch between what people demand out of single-player experiences and what's actually economical to provide. Other than a few studios who built a reputation before costs got out of control (Naughty Dog, Bethesda, Rockstar, etc) no one can afford the risks associated with paying 200 people to work for 3-4 years. Things are going to need to largely retreat back to 60ish people working for 2-3 years, whether that's through significant advances in elegant, robust, and affordable middleware or whether it's from consumers just scaling back expectations.
I think about the one AAA developer I can think of who really broke into the industry successfully in the past decade or so, in the era of extremely high costs, and that was CD Project, who did it by basically leveraging an arbitrage opportunity around a highly educated but low-cost workforce in Poland, and maybe that sort of thing is the future? More developers popping up in low-cost countries where 200 people working for 4 years can still be economical. But Poland may have been a unique situation, both in that it had access to EU workers to fill in any necessary high-skill gaps, and that it is Western enough to make games that still appealed to the big Western markets. That sort of outsourcing gets harder when the demand for AAA is so tied up in narrative, which has a lot of cultural constraints on it. Chinese development seems to be taking off, but they have a large enough home market they have little incentive to chase Western tastes.
I think about the one AAA developer I can think of who really broke into the industry successfully in the past decade or so, in the era of extremely high costs, and that was CD Project, who did it by basically leveraging an arbitrage opportunity around a highly educated but low-cost workforce in Poland, and maybe that sort of thing is the future? More developers popping up in low-cost countries where 200 people working for 4 years can still be economical. But Poland may have been a unique situation, both in that it had access to EU workers to fill in any necessary high-skill gaps, and that it is Western enough to make games that still appealed to the big Western markets. That sort of outsourcing gets harder when the demand for AAA is so tied up in narrative, which has a lot of cultural constraints on it. Chinese development seems to be taking off, but they have a large enough home market they have little incentive to chase Western tastes.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Even then he'd still be wrong.
Sony is the only one currently greenlighting and pumping out singleplayer AAA games.
I mean, look at their line up from 2018 onwards. God of War, Spiderman, The Last of Us Part II and Days Gone. Sucker Punch's new IP is also known to be a "Open world action game", so I think we can be sure it is SP focused too.
They also just released a huge AAA new singleplayer IP (Horizon Zero Dawn) and Uncharted 4 is one of the biggest games of the gen, which means they often find sucess in that formula, differently from other big publishers that seems to flop in most of their attempts with SP focused games (Microsoft with Quantum Break, Bethesda with every game they have released this year, etc).
That is why they are my favorite publisher tbh.
I mean, look at their line up from 2018 onwards. God of War, Spiderman, The Last of Us Part II and Days Gone. Sucker Punch's new IP is also known to be a "Open world action game", so I think we can be sure it is SP focused too.
They also just released a huge AAA new singleplayer IP (Horizon Zero Dawn) and Uncharted 4 is one of the biggest games of the gen, which means they often find sucess in that formula, differently from other big publishers that seems to flop in most of their attempts with SP focused games (Microsoft with Quantum Break, Bethesda with every game they have released this year, etc).
That is why they are my favorite publisher tbh.
TheListOfToddicho
Member
While I acknowledge that multiplayer is a very prominent thing, there's also many franchises that are pure singleplayer that sell millions of copies.
The desire to play games together will never go away. However, the same could also be said about the desire to play alone at times.
The desire to play games together will never go away. However, the same could also be said about the desire to play alone at times.
Papacheeks
Banned
The games that will have the most sales are single player though? Zelda, Mario Odyssey will have the highest sales this year for switch games. Followed by Mario Rabbids Kingdom and Mario kart as most sold games.
ALso your omitting games like Stardew valley and other high profile single player indie games that are selling very well.
Also Doom will sell well when it releases as well. All single player.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
DP.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Well, yeah. The Last of Us and Uncharted 4 have MP components with microtransactions.
That budget and focus can be justified by SIE due to the addition of MP and microtransactions.
But the main draw is the SP and that is where the majority of the budget and focus is going.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
The main draw is the SP but a ton of the lasting profits overtime are made from the MP.
I'm omitting them because I've repeated twice now I'm only talking about first party. Third party especially indie is completely irrelevant to a thread about AAA single player games
I understand what you're saying, but a lot of people stick around for the MP as well. That's how it's probably going to be with all future ND games. I expect this to be the case with Guerrilla, Santa Monica, and Sucker Punch in the future as well.
No one's immune to this.
GenericUser
Member
No, the recent ones just were a bore. Single player AAA games will always have their place.
Bits N Pieces
Member
I posted on the MS studios thread that Playground just put up a load of new roles for two games. One will be FH4 and the other is a new AAA Open World RPG and when I looked through most of the job specs there was no mention of multiplayer or online.
Always-honest
Banned
OrbitalBeard
Member
It's interesting you don't consider Nintendo a publisher greenlighting and pumping out single player AAA games.
I do think it's a bit easier for publishers to justify keeping giant, open world games SP-only, because it's easier to convince consumers to pay $60 on day one and there are other ways to monetize these games beyond the initial asking price, without the need for multiplayer. I won't be surprised if a game like Horizon 2 features no MP component.
Of course, this isn't always the case. RDR2 is going to make a killing on its MP mode.
It's too early to tell since a lot of developers are still working on SP titles to be released in 2018/19. Titles such as Spiderman or God of War that so many people have mentioned provide absolutely no clues to what might happen after these titles have been released.
What we can currently see is that many developers are experimenting with microtransactions & lootboxes, which are only disliked by a small number of gaming enthusiasts while the average gamer is either used to such business models, doesn't care or even likes them. Games like Prey or the Evil Within 2 underperform, while titles like Destiny 2, COD, Battlefield or Battlefront sell like crazy.
From a business perspective it simply makes no sense to invest in traditional single-player experiences, when doing something else is likely to generate higher returns and has no disadvantage except for upsetting a few GAF members such as me.
What we can currently see is that many developers are experimenting with microtransactions & lootboxes, which are only disliked by a small number of gaming enthusiasts while the average gamer is either used to such business models, doesn't care or even likes them. Games like Prey or the Evil Within 2 underperform, while titles like Destiny 2, COD, Battlefield or Battlefront sell like crazy.
From a business perspective it simply makes no sense to invest in traditional single-player experiences, when doing something else is likely to generate higher returns and has no disadvantage except for upsetting a few GAF members such as me.
This is basically my thought on the matter. As long as the audience exists (I almost exclusively play single player games, thought not all are "AAA"), these games will/should exist. I think we will continue to see major publishers adjusting their games' models for revenue generation, aka GaaS-type elements like loot boxes, microtransactions, etc., as from their standpoint as a business these types of things have been proven to bring in the dough, and what company wants to leave potential revenue on the table? But I'm of the opinion that even big-budget AAA projects can do just fine without that stuff (see Horizon ZD, Breath of the Wild, and numerous others as evidence), and I also think that stuff is annoying as I would prefer my games come as complete packages content-wise out of the box
Papacheeks
Banned
They should be considered especially with games like Zelda. But I would argue budget wise I don't think they cost as much as other AAA games.
Mainly because they don't do lot's of cutscene heavy games, or big story driven games, they are mainly platformers, or in zelda's case a open world game with characters out of the few cutscenes in the game not talking.
There's no Mo-cap needed, no big voice overs needed outside of the few custscenes in the game, alot of the voice work in mario and other games are done by same people that have been doing them for decades.
Also I highly doubt Zelda, Mario took close to 6 years like Horizon did.
OrbitalBeard
Member
You're absolutely right, but as you said in your first sentence, they're still creating big, single player experiences and many of them are still AAA. Games like Zelda and Odyssey stack up to the very best single player experiences this industry has to offer.
How many AAA budgeted games are even coming out each year anymore? There's a huge chasm between the budgets of legit AAA games and everything else.
Some people in this thread want to include mid budget games as AAA, but if you are going to do that then what is the point of even saying AAA? Nintendo many times stated that they had bowed out of the AAA arms race during the Wii years, for instance, as they realized it was a losing endeavor. I'm not sure why people keep bringing their games up.
Some people in this thread want to include mid budget games as AAA, but if you are going to do that then what is the point of even saying AAA? Nintendo many times stated that they had bowed out of the AAA arms race during the Wii years, for instance, as they realized it was a losing endeavor. I'm not sure why people keep bringing their games up.
Renna Hazel
Member
It's so weird that a term Nintendo coined in this industry to mean a quality title suddenly doesn't apply to them anymore. If AAA just means budgets that are ridiculous, then the industry should move away from that. It's not working in our favor.
ProtomanNeo
Member
I've said before, but I think maybe the answer for AAA single player games is to treat them like TV shows. Release them in volumes. If a TV show is good the first season it's picked up for a second. If consumers buy volume 1 the next part of the game is greenlit. One would have to figure out what a good cut off in terms of hours of game play is. Maybe 20 hours or so, and the price point.
UltimateUnknown
Member
If AAA publishers won't invest in them, there will be other smaller developers who will definitely do so. Just look at games like Nier Automata, Persona 5 and Legend of Zelda. These may not have required investments of the same magnitude of AAA games, but they're still critically three of the best games of this year and maybe ever made. Commercially they were great successes for their companies as well given the initial investment, even if they didn't sell on the level of the big AAA games with huge marketing campaigns. And the best part is that none of them have a single loot box in them.
Clearly there are a lot of people out there who are looking for great single player experiences, regardless of whether they are AAA, AA or A. As long as there is demand, someone will meet them and so far these have been some of the best quality games ever made.
Clearly there are a lot of people out there who are looking for great single player experiences, regardless of whether they are AAA, AA or A. As long as there is demand, someone will meet them and so far these have been some of the best quality games ever made.
I think with Nintendo you're seeing part of the solution to the problem in the retreat from ever-expanding realism and scope. AAA is fucked in the sense that it can't keep upping the ante as it has been for decades. Nintendo is in a good place to take advantage of that, because they've been pretty openly embracing a strategy of sidestepping the arms race altogether for years now. I think Japan in general stands to benefit a lot from the shift, because they suffered pretty badly during the 360/PS3 years when they were unable to keep up technically, but that disadvantage fades in an era when devs are forced to retreat from the technical cutting edge, and lower Japanese labor costs versus the West start to become a bigger advantage.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I don't think so, but it's just like voting. Does my vote count? I didn't vote for Trump, but he got elected. I did vote though.
I'm not playing one of these multi million player base games that's out on the market. I've already spent hundreds on games this year and the vast majority of them are SP (a few fighting games here and there).
I think they're looking at player count right now and in a year or two all these games could be half or even a quarter of their player base.
SP is vital to gaming. Not everyone wants to match make or be in a lobby every single gaming session.
I'm not playing one of these multi million player base games that's out on the market. I've already spent hundreds on games this year and the vast majority of them are SP (a few fighting games here and there).
I think they're looking at player count right now and in a year or two all these games could be half or even a quarter of their player base.
SP is vital to gaming. Not everyone wants to match make or be in a lobby every single gaming session.
Raven117
Member
Exactly right.
Sure, EA, Activision, etc....don't invest in single player...thats fine. Can't say I have enjoyed a single player experience they have put out in years.
The developers that can manage budgets and create awesome games will be thankful to have some more space to do their thing. (Bethesda, CDProjektRed, FromSoftware, Nintendo, Atlus, and many others).
Nintendo has many times decried the AAA arms race as a losing proposition. This is the primary reason they stated for releasing hardware with modest specs in comparison to their competition. Nintendo makes very high quality games while working with budgets they deem reasonable. Nintendo is the last company that would try and lay claim to making AAA games.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Absolutely spot on.
It also really helps that Nintendo has conditioned its consumer base to accept the $60 asking price for much of their software. People will continue to willingly pay full price for games like BotW, Odyssey, and MK8D for years and years.
Renna Hazel
Member
If AAA just means quality then Shovel Knight is a AAA game and the term loses all meaning. AAA has always strictly meant budget. There are hundreds of dreadful AAA games to attest to the fact that quality has no part in the definition.
Soul of the Beast
Member
For the western industry yes, you people are wasting too much money on graphics, marketing and set pieces. For us Asia and Japan, NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE.
Japan has been, and certainly will continue to be, the king of single-player games. 2017 is the best example, none of the AAA Japanese games flopped, they all meet and exceed expectations. Japanese AAA is the perfect model, Western AAA are simply too huge, too expensive and too flashy.
Japan has been, and certainly will continue to be, the king of single-player games. 2017 is the best example, none of the AAA Japanese games flopped, they all meet and exceed expectations. Japanese AAA is the perfect model, Western AAA are simply too huge, too expensive and too flashy.
Barry Burton
Member
I think we are going to see less and less singleplayer-only AAA games from third-parties, particularly games that are story-driven and don't boast huge open-worlds. I love immersive sims, but I think after the performance of recent games, they are going to disappear altogether from the AAA realm. I'd be surprised if Arkane doesn't become the off-cycle Elder Scrolls/Fallout developer going forward.
We'll still see good single-player offerings from Nintendo, Sony and other Japanese publishers. And we'll still see major single-player games like Red Dead, which also have a big online multiplayer component to them.
We'll still see good single-player offerings from Nintendo, Sony and other Japanese publishers. And we'll still see major single-player games like Red Dead, which also have a big online multiplayer component to them.
tearsintherain
Member
I think with the exception of massive franchises like Mario, GTA, sports games, etc most mid tier single player games can no longer assume sales of more than 2m copies and have to budget accordingly.
Ubisoft in particular I think is going to be the interesting case, their entire model is based on 5m+ copies sold of massively budgeted games and I'm not sure that is going to work. Origins, South Park, and Far Cry 5 should be the good test cases on how solid their current business model is.
On the flip side we'll see how the loot box model affects SP games with Mordor 2 I guess?
Ubisoft in particular I think is going to be the interesting case, their entire model is based on 5m+ copies sold of massively budgeted games and I'm not sure that is going to work. Origins, South Park, and Far Cry 5 should be the good test cases on how solid their current business model is.
On the flip side we'll see how the loot box model affects SP games with Mordor 2 I guess?
OrbitalBeard
Member
My quick take on this is that AAA games in general (with the exception of a few heavy-hitters) are on the way out. I get that every publisher wants their Destiny or Overwatch, but the truth is that only a few games can fill those roles. We saw this play out with MMOs, MOBAs, e-sports wannabes, etc. Trying to build a game that will retain a playerbase while there are already games with established playerbases in the same genre is super risky and usually fails.
All that said, that doesn't mean those companies falling back on the traditional, singleplayer, AAA game is viable. The cost to make those games (whether through natural causes or unforced errors) has skyrocketed, and the state of labor in the industry is super shitty.
So what does this mean? It means that the future lies in a few tentpole releases (mostly service games), games made on more manageable budgets that do well within their niches but never penetrate the mainstream (think stuff like Nier: Automata), and indie games.
I'm super okay with this future. The games I've liked the most this year (and most years tbh) fall into those latter two categories. But some people will hate this. Some people like their blockbusters, and those people will have to put up with both price gauging bullshit tactics and fewer games that they like coming out. And honestly, as consumers get sick of them, I see the microtransactions and such in those singleplayer games being dropped and companies deciding to abandon those franchises instead of trying and failing to profit from them.
All that said, that doesn't mean those companies falling back on the traditional, singleplayer, AAA game is viable. The cost to make those games (whether through natural causes or unforced errors) has skyrocketed, and the state of labor in the industry is super shitty.
So what does this mean? It means that the future lies in a few tentpole releases (mostly service games), games made on more manageable budgets that do well within their niches but never penetrate the mainstream (think stuff like Nier: Automata), and indie games.
I'm super okay with this future. The games I've liked the most this year (and most years tbh) fall into those latter two categories. But some people will hate this. Some people like their blockbusters, and those people will have to put up with both price gauging bullshit tactics and fewer games that they like coming out. And honestly, as consumers get sick of them, I see the microtransactions and such in those singleplayer games being dropped and companies deciding to abandon those franchises instead of trying and failing to profit from them.
Mass Effect
Member
Are people really acting like games like Mario Odssey and Breath of the Wild aren't AAA games?
If AA is equivalent to AAA then what's the point in differentiating the two? It's very clear that huge AAA games like RDR2 or Assassin's Creed Origins have budgets that are in a whole different stratosphere then anything Nintendo is producing. The marketing budgets for either of those games is probably a multiple of the BotW budget alone. If BotW really had a AAA budget Nintendo would be struggling to stay afloat with the small number of copies the game sold. The install base just wasn't there to support a legit AAA budget.
The market has completely stratified. We get a handful of AAA games, a whole lot more AA games and then whatever the indie scene releases.
Renna Hazel
Member
It wouldn't lose all meaning, it would mean a quality game. Nintendo has used the term to describe games like Tetris, so it hasn't always strictly meant budget. It has the past decade, which makes little sense to me. A game with a troubled development cycle can have a huge budget. A game made in another country like The Witcher can have a much smaller budget. AAA doesn't tell the consumer anything about the game that's relevant. The same exact game made in two different countries could be AAA or not merely based on the cost of living in the area.
It's a silly term and plenty of people in this topic are having a hard time defining what the criteria is.
It's been a staple of basically all F2P, MMO, and mobile games for over a decade. You just think it's a fad because it was relatively slow to appear in mainstream AAA games.
shira
Member
I mean, there are a lot of companies that still makes SP focused games but I would consider them a online focused company.
Ubisoft has Assassins Creed. But at the same time it is pretty obvious they are transitioning for the online focused strategy. The Division, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Rainbow 6 Siege, the new Pirate game, etc. If it wasnt Assassins Creed, I highly doubt they would throw $100+ million budget (which it is the size we are talking here) for a SP focused game. They dont feel like it is viable anymore.
In the other hand, Sony is willing to fund games like these every single year. In fact, I dont even think they had any online focused game this gen except for DriveClub and Gran Turismo Sports (which are in a genre in which online play is becoming much more important so yeah, they cant run from it). Every AAA release of them are SP focused.
Nintendo has been focusing a lot on online play. Splatoon was their biggest sucess of their last years. ARMS is their flagship new IP of this gen. Smash Bros is as big as ever. Of course they will not abandon Mario and Zelda, but I dont think you are getting what I am trying to say if mentioning Nintendo SP efforts is your counter argument.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I wouldn't consider a game like BotW to be an "AA" release either.
There can be different tiers of "AAA". It doesn't have to only include games made by half a dozen studios and a thousand+ developers.
Odyssey launches next week. Xenoblade 2 releases December 1st. Nintendo has greenlit a new Metroid Prime, Fire Emblem, and Pokemon title (Pokemon has MP elements, but then again, so do games like Uncharted and The Last of Us) and there are likely dozens of games currently unannounced.
Nintendo is really no less SP-focused than Sony, even with lots of MP games under their belt.
Soul of the Beast
Member
They are pretty narrow-minded and ignorant in my opinion.
Japanese AAA are a lot cheaper than Western AAA, the production level just isn't the same, that doesn't mean they are not AAA. It's like comparing Shin-Godzilla to Transformers: The Last Knight, one is Japanese and another is American, but they are all theater blockbusters, despite the huge difference in budget.
As long as it's available in fucking physical and has a 60 dollar price tag, it's AAA, period.
If these Japanese AAA games don't count as AAA games then I guess ''real AAA'' games really are dying, and I don't feel bad at all. Those games are a waste of money and attention. Just like Hollywood summer blockbuster trash.
Japanese AAA, or ''2.5A'' according to some people, is the way to go for video games, easy to profit and still maintain superb quality.
Except the term has existed since the 90's and the definition was always clear. AAA is strictly budget size. It's OK if you favorite game company isn't making AAA games. In fact it's probably better that way since they are less likely to go under with a couple AAA misses. If Platinum games made AAA games they would be long gone.
How about we call the lower tier of AAA something like AA...
Jeff Freecss
Member
I think the campaign for not buying games at original price really hurt single player games. You can sell a lot of loot boxes or MT at the original price for multiplayer focused games. It's hard for single player games to do that. Plus, the acceptable business model of single player games is often very expensive to make. I bet the downloadable content of The Witcher 3 is far more expensive to make than the downloadable content of OverWatch. And I bet the sales of The Witcher 3 downloadable content is far less OverWatch's. And if people don't buy Games at price, the single player games will always take more hits than the multiplayer focused games.